Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
Question: The scriptures speak of the six faculties, namely:
The eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind—these six senses
interact with forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, and thoughts—these six objects.
Here, the eye is the inner faculty and form is the external object; the eye can perceive form. Similarly, the mind is the inner faculty and mental phenomena are the external objects; the mind can cognize mental phenomena.
No, there is not. Why?
"If the eye cannot see itself, How can it see other things?"
The eye cannot see itself. Why is this so? Consider a lamp: it can both illuminate itself and illuminate other things. If the eye truly possessed the nature of seeing, it should be able to see itself as well as see other things. Yet in reality, this is not the case. Therefore, the verse states: "If the eye cannot see itself, how can it see other things?"
Question: The eye cannot see itself, yet it can see other things. It is like fire, which can burn other things but cannot burn itself.
He replied:
The fire metaphor fails to establish what is seen by the eye; The matter of going, not going, and the moment of going has already been fully addressed.
Though you present the analogy of fire, it cannot establish the principle of seeing through the eye. This matter has already been addressed in the chapter on Coming and Going: just as there is no going in what has already gone, no going in what has not yet gone, and no going in the moment of going; also, just as there is no burning in what is already burned, no burning in what is not yet burned, and no burning in the moment of burning—in the same way, there is no mark of seeing in what is already seen, no seeing in what is not yet seen, and no seeing in the moment of seeing. Furthermore:
If you haven't truly seen, it cannot be called seeing. To claim that seeing can be seen— that is not how it is.
When the eye has not yet encountered a form, it cannot see. At that moment, it is not called seeing; it is only when it encounters a form that it is called seeing. Therefore, the verse says, "When not seeing, there is no seeing"—how then can seeing be said to see? Moreover, in both places, there is no such thing as a "seeing" itself. Why is this?
"If seeing cannot truly see, Nor non-seeing perceive reality, Once the view itself is shattered, The one who holds the view is freed."
If it cannot see what is seen, that has already been explained. Nor can it see what is not seen, because there is no act of seeing. Without the act of seeing, how can there be seeing? Since seeing does not exist, the seer does not exist either. Why? If the seer existed apart from seeing, then even a person without eyes could see with other faculties. If seeing occurs through seeing, then seeing would contain the act of seeing. But the seer has no act of seeing. Therefore, the verse says: "If seeing is refuted, the seer is refuted." Furthermore:
"Whether there is seeing or not, The one who sees cannot be found. Since there is no one who sees, How can there be seeing or what is seen?"
If there is seeing, the seer does not arise. If there is no seeing, the seer also does not arise. Since the seer has no real existence, how can there be seeing or what is seen? If there is no seer, then who is it that uses the act of seeing to distinguish external forms? Therefore, the verse says: “Because there is no seer, how can there be seeing or what is seen?” Furthermore:
"If what is seen does not exist, Then consciousness and the other three are also absent. How then can the four graspings and all such causes Ever come to be?"
Since there is no seeing and no visible phenomena, there are also no four factors: consciousness, contact, sensation, and craving. And because there is no craving and so on, the twelve links of dependent origination, including the four kinds of clinging, are also absent. Furthermore:
"Ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind, Sound and the one who hears, and so on— Understand that their meaning Is the same as explained above."
When you look, what can be seen is empty of a fixed nature, because it arises from causes and conditions. The same applies to the other five senses—hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking—and their corresponding objects—sound, smell, taste, touch, and mental objects. Their meaning is the same, so they are not discussed separately.